ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

[glenimp617]

they're not dropping enough bombs in my opinion

at some point the penny will drop and they'll realise the more people they murder, the more bombs well drop on them.......although they are stupid so maybe not

 

[Danthus]

The MP for Congleton voted for military action, one of her reasons being that ISIS posed a direct threat to her constituency.

 

[Cuchulain]

The MP for Congleton voted for military action, one of her reasons being that ISIS posed a direct threat to her constituency.

I'm not sure she's knows what ISIS is ....

 

[Felon]

god ;_;

all this aviation porn on the TV is making me want to quit work for the day and endlessly drop GBU 12 bombs on things, in DCS A10-C...

 

[eatcustard]

I'm not sure she's knows what ISIS is ....

Do you...

 

[Dis86]

They know the risks when they sign up.
Believe me they would still bomb them, they are not cowards, they are real men/women who help keep us safe. so you can watch x factor

I was well aware of the risks. You know exactly what you're getting in to.

 

[Devlish]

The BBC are reporting the RAF use the Paveway bomb, not Brimstone which formed part of the case for the strikes.

They wont be using Brimstones for everything, only when they want to reduce collateral damage or take out individual targets.

 

[Uther]

What are they going to do with a pistol -

What do you think? They'll know the unpleasant consequences of being captured alive.

 

[Danthus]

They wont be using Brimstones for everything, only when they want to reduce collateral damage or take out individual targets.

I agree but if you watched the debate last night there was a clear narrative that Brimstone would be used because of its accuracy thus limiting any collateral damage.

 

[Caged]

It's a completely different enemy to Nazi Germany. That really should not need pointing out.

Glaucus doesn't let facts get in the way of self-righteous ranting.

 

[eatcustard]

I agree but if you watched the debate last night there was a clear narrative that Brimstone would be used because of its accuracy thus limiting any collateral damage.

Only if civilians are near by.
Otherwise big bombs would be used to flatten the area

 

[Deleted member 66701]

What do you think? They'll know the unpleasant consequences of being captured alive.

And I'm ashamed we're sending them to a theatre where they have to consider such an eventuality.

If ever there was a case for exclusive use of drones, this is it. But that brings a whole other raft of issues to the table (indiscriminate targeting, target confirmation etc).

The whole thing's a shambles.

 

[SPG]

A extremely sad day in the history of the UK.

Twisted politics beyond belief.

I am not against action in Syria, i am against going into a conflict where we have no ****ing idea on what the we are going to do once its over. YET AGAIN.

Air attacks wont stop it, all it does it breed contempt and resentment in the long term, the next attack on UK soil will be down to Cameroon and his warmongering.

We learn nothing from the past, and what has made this inexcusable is the the past is only 20 years ago.

 

[Felon]

A extremely sad day in the history of the UK.

Twisted politics beyond belief.

I am not against action in Syria, i am against going into a conflict where we have no ****ing idea on what the we are going to do once its over. YET AGAIN.

Air attacks wont stop it, all it does it breed contempt and resentment in the long term, the next attack on UK soil will be down to Cameroon and his warmongering.

We learn nothing from the past, and what has made this inexcusable is the the past is only 20 years ago.

Some of the points Phillip Hammond was making last night, were more to do with the fact that the UK is already very high on ISILs target list, so the idea of airstrikes is simply to degrade their capabilities, based on the threat posed to us.

If the intelligence is correct, and we are high on the target list, and their command centres can be bombed - it doesn't seem that unreasonable to me to bomb these targets, if the intelligence is correct.

Of course there's always the argument that the effects of these bombs may breed more extremism and further increase the risk, but the line from the government is that the terrorist threat is already so high - that it's more risky to sit and do nothing, especially when our allies (who are already taking action) are asking us to join in and help..

I'm personally undecided myself, I listened to almost ALL of the debate in parliament yesterday, read what the analysts have said, and I just do not know what it's best to do, and nor do I claim to.

 

[Gilly]

they're not dropping enough bombs in my opinion

at some point the penny will drop and they'll realise the more people they murder, the more bombs well drop on them.......although they are stupid so maybe not

See, this sort of thinking is my only problem with the situation. You could say that either way: "they are stupid! We keep blowing them up because they are bombing us, and they bomb us more! When will they learn?"

Even worse, any country at all in the ME: "Ah, here comes the West again, meddling in our affairs and undermining any sort of normality in the whole region before leaving the entire place in a mess again".

Perhaps at some point the penny will drop with us. Although we've made this mistake that many times and haven't learned yet...

 

[XeNoN89]

Still don't know why everyone is making such a fuss about this when we've already been bombing them in Iraq for months.

 

[NickK]

See, this sort of thinking is my only problem with the situation. You could say that either way: "they are stupid! We keep blowing them up because they are bombing us, and they bomb us more! When will they learn?"

Even worse, any country at all in the ME: "Ah, here comes the West again, meddling in our affairs and undermining any sort of normality in the whole region before leaving the entire place in a mess again".

Perhaps at some point the penny will drop with us. Although we've made this mistake that many times and haven't learned yet...

I think the ME is quite capable of random spontaneous war - based on religious-based conflict between sects.

I also believe that a large extend of "help" is requested by ME states who don't want to get their fingers dirty.

The problem is that it's multi-faceted. There is no single solution for one facet that solves it outright, it's more complex than that.

ISIS believe anyone not ISIS are infidels hence targets. The issue here is if you don't demonstrate and project strength back as a warning of what could happen then the propaganda is produced to make it sound like terrorising the UK is an easy option. The number that attempt it goes up and self reinforces.

Clear message - UK is not an easy target and doesn't tolerate it.
Clear message - Targeting UK results in serious issues within their own 'safe' domain.
Clear message - it's not acceptable to displace civilians by invading and causing civil war.

If the UK has a reputation for clinical results in the battlefield that is even better - it means ISIS don't feel safe using their standard tactic of human shielding.

 

[Tunney]

I hope everyone is ready for a new flood of refugees.

 

[Basher]

It amazes me the amount of people who think we're engaged in the ME to bring some kind of peach and 'normality' to the region. It's clearly about world power and more importantly, oil.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Some of the points Phillip Hammond was making last night, were more to do with the fact that the UK is already very high on ISILs target list, so the idea of airstrikes is simply to degrade their capabilities, based on the threat posed to us.

If that is his logic then it is flawed. The attack on Glasgow Airport, for example, was carried by home grown sympathisers. They are the most potent threat and this action will only increase the threat.

If the intelligence is correct, and we are high on the target list, and their command centres can be bombed - it doesn't seem that unreasonable to me to bomb these targets, if the intelligence is correct.

Reminds me of WMD and 45 minutes claims.

Of course there's always the argument that the effects of these bombs may breed more extremism and further increase the risk, but the line from the government is that the terrorist threat is already so high - that it's more risky to sit and do nothing, especially when our allies (who are already taking action) are asking us to join in and help..

Tokenism at its best.

I'm personally undecided myself, I listened to almost ALL of the debate in parliament yesterday, read what the analysts have said, and I just do not know what it's best to do, and nor do I claim to.

The BBC's security correspondent said there are 110 groups fighting in Syria, some against Assad some pro ISIS, some changing sides frequently. He also said Cameron's 70000 troops fighting against Assad was comprised of people with different agendas and allegiances. The biggest danger as mentioned in Parliament was so called 'mission creep' where UK ground troops will be deployed. Nobody with experience has said that air attacks will defeat ISIS. General Dannat made that point yesterday.